Bruce McFarling wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:41 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Bruce McFarling wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 4:16 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> But can one call a notation that lacks the properties of a language,
>>>> "language"?
>
>>> What in your view is the properties of a language?
>
>> The universals linguists identify in languages: syntax, tree structured
>> grammar, parts of speech, ...
>
> However, people are perfectly capable of understanding body language
> without any parts of speech at all.
>
> You start with the adoption of a common term into a field as a
> technical term and then insist that that jargon is the only
> permissible use of the term.
>
> It doesn't work like that in the social sciences. A discipline gets to
> define the terms it uses within the scope of technical discussions
> amongst social scientists in that field ... and normally within the
> scope of technical discussions amongst those using a particular
> approach in that field ... but its certainly doesn't get to restrict
> all use of that term in all other social settings.
>
> Here's some of the define:language results from Google
>
> A language is a system, used to communicate, comprised of a set of
> symbols and a set of rules (or grammar) by which the manipulation of
> these symbols is governed. These symbols can be combined productively
> to convey new information, distinguishing languages from other forms
> of communication.
>
> The human use of spoken or written words as a communication system.
> Language can also include a system of communication based on signs,
> gestures, or inarticulate sounds.
>
> # a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or
> conventional symbols; "he taught foreign languages"; "the language
> introduced is ...
> # speech: (language) communication by word of mouth; "his speech was
> garbled"; "he uttered harsh language"; "he recorded the spoken
> language of the streets"
> # terminology: a system of words used to name things in a particular
> discipline; "legal terminology"; "biological nomenclature"; "the
> language of sociology"
> # linguistic process: the cognitive processes involved in producing
> and understanding linguistic communication; "he didn't have the
> language to express his feelings"
> # the mental faculty or power of vocal communication; "language sets
> homo sapiens apart from all other animals"
> # lyric: the text of a popular song or musical-comedy number; "his
> compositions always started with the lyrics"; "he wrote both words and
> music"; "the song uses colloquial language"
>
> Forth qualifies as a language under the first definition, the second
> definition, and the first and third sense of the third definition.
But you are just trying to define the problem away: language, as
understood by linguists, is what engages the human "language instinct",
and that's a powerful mental "muscle". Weaker definitions only suit a
weak language, one that cannot as effectively employ human mental power.
--
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.
|
